However, there is an element of the party that is. Google tea party and racism.

do you think there are no racists in the democratic party? How about these

“I love this quote. It’s from Mahatma Gandhi. He ran a gas station down in St. Louis for a couple of years. Mr. Gandhi, do you still go to the gas station? A lot of wisdom comes out of that gas station” – Hillary Clinton, Former Secretary of State

“You cannot go to a 7-11 or a Dunkin Donuts unless you have a slight Indian accent. I’m not joking!” – Joe Biden, Vice President

“I mean you’ve got the first sort of mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and nice-looking guy.” – Joe Biden, Vice President speaking of yep, you guessed it Barack Obama

“[Harry Reid] was wowed by Obama’s oratorical gifts and believed the country was ready to embrace a black presidential candidate, especially one such as a Obama — a ‘light-skinned’ African American with ‘no Negro dialect, unless he wanted to have one.’” – Harry Reid, Senate Majority Leader, as quoted in the book Game Change

My point is not that Democrats are racists but that you can find examples of anything you want to using Google. That type of argument was silly at very best and rarely adds any value.

It would be about who could reach the most people, not whose friend's has the deepest pockets

Or in the case of Florida's upcoming Gubernatorial race the candidate that has the deepest pockets. Scott is already scaring off Dems because he has $25mm and will spend $100mm to discredit any dems that run. Who needs rich friends ? And there are similar cases in other states where Dems are in the same position...the system is broken.

What you are totally missing is that the Speaker has been told that he cannot take any bill to the floor that does not have the support of a majority of Republican House Members. If he does, he will be replaced as speaker. Speaker Boehner is being held hostage as much as the President.

Bingo! The only way a bill that is moderate enough to be adopted by the Senate and signed by Obama makes it out of the House is if Boehner cobbles enough non-insane Republican votes together with the Democratic caucus in the House. But, Boehner won't do that. He evokes the Hastert Rule because he knows if he started passing moderate bills out of the House largely with Democratic votes he'd be tarred and feathered by the Teahdists and lose the Speaker's gavel. See, the Teahadists may be a minority in the House, but they're a majority of the Majority, pretty much putting them in charge of the body's entire agenda. And, guys like Cantor have already indicated they'd be plenty happy to stab Boehner in the back and take the gavel from him in a heartbeat if Boehner decided to actually try to pass legislation. So, we get gridlock and a litany of crazy, symbolic votes to repeal ACA and other right wing fantasies instead.

So, again, if Boehner can't control his own party, why do you, TOS, think it's reasonable to accuse Obama of a "lack of leadership" for not being able to get moderate legislation through Congress? It's structurally impossible given the current composition of the House. And the House will be that way for quite a few election cycles more because of how badly gerrymandered many states' districts were after the 2010 Census was finalized and GOP legislatures did their worst (which is why there should be a Constitutional Amendment to set a standard for nonpartisan redistricting, just like there should be a Constitutional Amendment publicly funding campaigns and banning the influence of money from the process).

Do you get it now, TOS? Do you understand how both parties aren't equally culpable?

Donnie and pete you totally miss the point and still want to lay 100% of the blame on the republicans. Just is not so.

If Reid would take one of the House bills, any one and assign it to a committee they could then add amendments and change the language. They can then pass it on the floor and then send it back to the house. If the house disagrees with the change in language you can take the bill to a conference committee.

Most major laws first go through this process, a conference committee, before becoming law. It is there to reach a compromise. But if Reid won't call the house's bluff and bring the bill to the senate what can one do? It has been reported several times the Reid has stopped a house bill he did not like and refused to bring it to the calendar fearing his democrats would vote for the bill.

Want to know why the House hasn't taken up the Immigration Bill passed in the Senate last month? Reid has refused to send it to the House. He blocked his own bill. And why? Because it is unconstitutional. Why you ask? Because it is also a revenue bill. A revenue bill can not be introduced and past in the Senate without starting in the House.

Bingo! The only way a bill that is moderate enough to be adopted by the Senate and signed by Obama makes it out of the House is if Boehner cobbles enough non-insane Republican votes together with the Democratic caucus in the House. But, Boehner won't do that. He evokes the Hastert Rule because he knows if he started passing moderate bills out of the House largely with Democratic votes he'd be tarred and feathered by the Teahdists and lose the Speaker's gavel. See, the Teahadists may be a minority in the House, but they're a majority of the Majority, pretty much putting them in charge of the body's entire agenda. And, guys like Cantor have already indicated they'd be plenty happy to stab Boehner in the back and take the gavel from him in a heartbeat if Boehner decided to actually try to pass legislation. So, we get gridlock and a litany of crazy, symbolic votes to repeal ACA and other right wing fantasies instead.

So, again, if Boehner can't control his own party, why do you, TOS, think it's reasonable to accuse Obama of a "lack of leadership" for not being able to get moderate legislation through Congress? It's structurally impossible given the current composition of the House. And the House will be that way for quite a few election cycles more because of how badly gerrymandered many states' districts were after the 2010 Census was finalized and GOP legislatures did their worst (which is why there should be a Constitutional Amendment to set a standard for nonpartisan redistricting, just like there should be a Constitutional Amendment publicly funding campaigns and banning the influence of money from the process).

Do you get it now, TOS? Do you understand how both parties aren't equally culpable?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Donnie D

What you are totally missing is that the Speaker has been told that he cannot take any bill to the floor that does not have the support of a majority of Republican House Members. If he does, he will be replaced as speaker. Speaker Boehner is being held hostage as much as the President.

pete & Donnie you forget on important point as to why the tea party can not and would not remove Boehner. Democrats. In order to remove Boehner, and put a tea party member in his place requires all of the republicans to be on board. The tea party is a minority in the republican party. If not the democrats can take control the Speakers post. Do you really think they would let that happen? Do you really think the tea party would rather have Pelosi instead of Boehner? Please put the bong down.

Donnie and pete you totally miss the point and still want to lay 100% of the blame on the republicans. Just is not so.

If Reid would take one of the House bills, any one and assign it to a committee they could then add amendments and change the language. They can then pass it on the floor and then send it back to the house. If the house disagrees with the change in language you can take the bill to a conference committee.

Most major laws first go through this process, a conference committee, before becoming law. It is there to reach a compromise. But if Reid won't call the house's bluff and bring the bill to the senate what can one do? It has been reported several times the Reid has stopped a house bill he did not like and refused to bring it to the calendar fearing his democrats would vote for the bill.

Want to know why the House hasn't taken up the Immigration Bill passed in the Senate last month? Reid has refused to send it to the House. He blocked his own bill. And why? Because it is unconstitutional. Why you ask? Because it is also a revenue bill. A revenue bill can not be introduced and past in the Senate without starting in the House.

Give me just one example of a far righty talking about compromise on anything. Their tactic and mantra is "squeal and repeal".

Posting references from rags like the Washington Times doesn't further your case. They are as legit as TMZ, Drudge, Huffpost or Newsmax.

oh please. I read any news source and weed out the bull shit. But for you here is a youtube of a democrat from the house asking Reid to send the bill over. Or is this guy to middle of the road for you?

First, that implies the House has a bill. They don't, oftentimes. Immigration reform bill? Nope. ACA fix? Nope. They've voted to repeal it 40 times, but no constructive fixes. But, even if these mythical bills did exist out of the House (as I said, this House is set to be the least productive in history) what's the point of sending something back to a group as far out in right field and unreasonable as the House is. Democrats have taken old Republican ideas (that's what ACA is, for crying out loud!) and used those as starting points and the Teahidists won't negotiate. Why? Because they don't want to legislate. They want to dismantle the government! So, when one side isn't there for any constructive purposes, what can you accomplish?

The Democrats in Congress aren't ideal, but they at least believe government should exist. To this day I can't understand GOP voters who expect a party that hates the government to be able to govern well. That's like putting a pacifist in charge of the Army or making a vegetarian the head chef at Lee Roy Selmons.

Awwww, but they do have a bill. Don't mean for you to hack up a meal but it is from Fox.

Price emphasizes that his and other alternatives would let consumers choose what kind of insurance they want, while ObamaCare requires consumers to buy insurance and sets guidelines for what will be offered on the market.

"We ought to be moving in the direction of patient-centered health care," Price said. "Which means patients and families and doctors making medical decisions, not Washington, D.C."

pete & Donnie you forget on important point as to why the tea party can not and would not remove Boehner. Democrats. In order to remove Boehner, and put a tea party member in his place requires all of the republicans to be on board. The tea party is a minority in the republican party. If not the democrats can take control the Speakers post. Do you really think they would let that happen? Do you really think the tea party would rather have Pelosi instead of Boehner? Please put the bong down.

A democrat can't realistically become the speaker of the house. To become speaker you need a majority of all house members to vote for that candidate. A democrat can't become speaker without republican votes and it would be political suicide for any republican to vote for a democrat to become speaker. The last time a member of congress crossed party lines on a vote for speaker of the house was in 2000. When it occurred, the member was stripped of his seniority and lost all of his committee assignments. Today they would quickly have a primary challenger.

The speaker is selected by the majority party. After they select their candidate, each of the party members vote for that candidate. When the vote is held, the republicans vote for the member that their caucus selected and the democrats vote for the member of their caucus, who becomes the minority leader. It's a straight party line vote virtually every time.

I don't appreciate the bong reference - especially when you are wrong.

__________________
Can you imagine what the “Christian” right would have said if President Obama had admitted that he failed to disclose on a previous campaign finance report, that he signed under oath, that he made a 6 figure payoff to a porn star to keep an affair silent?

A democrat can't realistically become the speaker of the house. To become speaker you need a majority of all house members to vote for that candidate. A democrat can't become speaker without republican votes and it would be political suicide for any republican to vote for a democrat to become speaker. The last time a member of congress crossed party lines on a vote for speaker of the house was in 2000. When it occurred, the member was stripped of his seniority and lost all of his committee assignments. Today they would quickly have a primary challenger.

The speaker is selected by the majority party. After they select their candidate, each of the party members vote for that candidate. When the vote is held, the republicans vote for the member that their caucus selected and the democrats vote for the member of their caucus, who becomes the minority leader. It's a straight party line vote virtually every time.

I don't appreciate the bong reference - especially when you are wrong.

Sorry for the bong reference.

But you made my point Donnie on the other. The tea party is the minority. They would have to swing votes from non tea party republicans in order to #1 dump Boehner and #2 elect one of their own. They can always elect to not vote, in which case the democrats could possibly cast the majority of votes. That is what it would take for the democrats to win. But like I said I think they would not like to see Pelosi back in power.

Thus it is time for Boehner to be a leader and make the tea party know their place. But as with Obama and Reid I will not hold my breath.

What I found hard to take with you, and some others, is that you are all in with one party and the other can drop off the face of the earth. It is that attitude that has caused the divide with our system. I put out one sides suggestions and then respond to your demonizing that side. I try to show that both sides are just as at fault as the other. You, and others, it is just "be damn the republicans".

It is like your racist comment about republicans. Do you really think that if a member of the tea party holds up some awful sign then all republicans are racists? I would hope not. Every part of society has racists be it whites, blacks, Muslims, Indians, etc etc etc. But not all members are racists. Racist is a word that I can not stand. It shows the lowest of the low. But I do believe that everyone has a little prejudice in them. You have shown that you are prejudice when it comes to republicans. Your posts show that you wish there was no such thing as a republican.

I admit I am prejudice. I can not stand people that refuse to sit and listen to others views and then try to sit down and solve our problems together. I do not look at compromise as a bad thing, but something that needs to happened if we want our system of laws and our government to work.